Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

Stans Energy Corp V.HRE.H

Alternate Symbol(s):  HREEF

Stans Energy Corp. is a Canada-based resource development company focused on advancing rare and specialty metals properties and processing technologies. The Company is transitioning into a supplier of materials and technologies that will assist in satisfying the future energy supply, storage and transmission needs of the world. Its subsidiaries include SevAmRus CJSC, Kutisay Mining LLC and Kashka REE Plant Ltd.


TSXV:HRE.H - Post by User

Bullboard Posts
Post by mrstockguyon Oct 14, 2014 8:51am
153 Views
Post# 23025168

Interview / local press

Interview / local press

Decision of the Economic Court of the CIS Kutessayu not appealable

After reports that the CIS Economic Court upheld Kyrgyzstan regarding disputes with mining company Stans Enegry and action LLC "Central Asian Development Corporation FEZ" Bishkek ", in the center of legal representation of the Government responded to the questions," WB ".

- Why are addressed in the Economic Court of the CIS?

- The only body which is competent to interpret the Convention, which referred to the plaintiffs, is the CIS Economic Court of the Kyrgyz Republic to have inquired about the interpretation of the March 6, 2014.

Recall, for the period from November 2013 to June of 2014 the Moscow Arbitration Chamber of Commerce (MCCI arbitration), incorrectly interpreting Art.11 Convention for the Protection of Investors' Rights on 28 March 1997, issued three unjust decisions against the Kyrgyz Republic without its participation in the amount of approximately $ 145 million. So we turned to the CIS Economic Court, which on September 23 ruled in favor of the CD.

- What is the Kyrgyz side has built its position?If only that in the Moscow arbitration can not be accessed, then do not consider whether the government had a weak position here?Companies will simply go to another court, and rocking the situation will continue.

- Kyrgyzstan's position is that this provision of the Convention is a framework agreement and our country for the dispute to international arbitration in particular must be secured by a separate agreement.We are confident that our strong position as the CIS Economic Court upheld the CD and completely refuted the arguments of the plaintiffs.Any investment dispute shall be considered within the framework of a bilateral agreement or the law "On Investments in the Kyrgyz Republic."

- Where can appeal this decision to the plaintiffs?

- Decision on the interpretation made by the full composition of the Economic Court of the CIS, it is final and not appealable.

- How did you choose a partner law firm?In preparation for the process that you take on, and what worked Law Firm?

- The government pursued a tender for the selection of law firms to protect the interests of the Kyrgyz Republic for two arbitration disputes.We are talking about the lawsuit LLC "O.K.K.V."and shareholders.The lawsuit was filed with the nationalization of pension "Aurora Green."And the claim of a citizen of the Republic of Korea and the LLC "Central Asian Development Corporation FEZ" Bishkek ", which appealed to the Moscow Arbitration Court. According to the results of the tender was selected law firm" Satarov, Askar and Partners. "

On the third dispute, namely, the claim made by Stans Energy Corp and LLC Kutisay Mining interests of the Kyrgyz Republic is the Center of legal representation of the government.

- Is not it easier to go to the world?Did you discuss this issue?

- The issue of pre-trial settlement of the dispute was discussed more than once.Meetings were held with representatives of the Canadian company.To this end, even formed an interagency working group.However, the company Stans Energy Corp and LLC Kutisay Mining require to execute the decision of arbitration in the MCCI and pay her about $ 118 million.

Help

In 2012, on the initiative of deputies of the parliamentary faction of "Ar-" relevant authorities wascanceled license Stans Energy Kutessay to the field.After that, the Canadian mining company start international arbitration against the government of Kyrgyzstan for the beginning of the trial for invalidation of extending LLC Kutisay Mining (daughter of Stans Energy Corp.) of the license agreement for the right to use subsoil deposits of rare earth metals Kutessay II.

The size of the claim was $ 117 million, 853 thousand. Stans Energy noted that since 2012 the government adopted a series of measures that make it impossible to conduct development.In particular, in March 2013, the General Prosecutor's Office filed a lawsuit against the State Agency for Geology and Mineral Resources to invalidate the extension LLC Kutisay Mining License Agreement subsoil deposits of rare earth metals Kutessay II.

June 30 this year, the International Arbitration Court decision ordered the government of Kyrgyzstan to pay a Canadian company Stans Energy Corp.$ 118.2 million for the revocation of a license for the deposit Kutessay.The Kyrgyz government, in turn, announced its intention to appeal the decision .

URL: https://www.vb.kg/289522

Bullboard Posts